alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.4

Incentive Bonus Plan

I. Philosophy

The goal of the Incentive Bonus Plan is to promote teamwork in the accomplishment of difficult annualobjectives.  

For employees selected to participate in the Incentive Bonus Plan, bonus payments will be based on acombination of company-wide or division-wide achievement of performance milestones as well as individual performance.  

Bonuses are intended be paid on an annual basis based on the objectives established for the applicableyear.

II. Participation:

Employees eligible to participate in the plan are identified in Appendix A.  Based on therecommendation of the CEO, additional employees may be added to the plan and participants may be removed from the plan at anytime at the sole discretion of the Compensation Committee.  

Participants in the plan will not be eligible for any other performance-based bonus plans, includingcommission programs or variable-pay plans, other than the company's stock option plan.

Participants who work less than twelve months but more than one month in any given year (e.g., new hiresand participants who take on leaves of absence) will receive a prorated bonus based on the percent of the year worked.

To be eligible to receive a bonus, participants must be employed as of the bonus payment date.Participants whose employment is terminated for any reason or no reason prior to the bonus payment date will not be entitled to receivea bonus.  

The bonus payment date will be determined by the Compensation Committee in its discretion, and isanticipated to be during the first two weeks of April of each year.

Bonuses will be paid in cash in a single lump sum on the bonus payment date, less any requiredwithholding.  

III. Determination of Bonuses

Each participant's bonus will equal the product obtained by multiplying (i) the participant's annual basesalary by (ii) the participant's maximum Bonus Rate (as determined by the Compensation Committee and identified on Appendix A) by(iii) the Division Bonus Percentage or Company Bonus Percentage (as applicable) by (iv) the participant's Individual PerformanceFactor.

Annual employee ratings and the resulting Individual Performance Factor will be determined by companymanagement and subject to review by the Compensation Committee.  Any bonus payment to an officer of the company must bereviewed and approved by the Compensation Committee.  Subject to adjustment by the Compensation Committee, IndividualPerformance Factors will be based on the following table:
Denied and Opinion Filed October 28, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-20-00724-CV

IN RE VERSAILLES DALLAS, INC., ET AL., Relators

Original Proceeding from the 68th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-15106

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Whitehill, Pedersen, III, and Carlyle

Opinion by Justice Pedersen, III

Relators’ August 7, 2020 petition for writ of mandamus challenges two 

discovery orders compelling them to respond to various discovery requests, 

including requests for financial information and tax returns. Entitlement to 

mandamus relief requires relators to show that the trial court has clearly abused its 

discretion and that relators have no adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. 

Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). Based on the petition, 

real parties in interest’s response, relators’ reply, and the record before us, we 

conclude that relators have failed to show their entitlement to the relief requested. 

Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P.

52.8(a). 
–2–

200724f.p05

/Bill Pedersen, III/

BILL PEDERSEN, III

JUSTICE
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration #11004 and #11005] 

# AGENCY:

Small Business Administration.

# ACTION:

Amendment 3.

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Minnesota (FEMA-1717-DR), dated 08/23/2007. 

*Incident:*                         Severe Storms and Flooding.                    

*Incident Period:*                         08/18/2007 through 08/31/2007.                    

*Effective Date:*                         09/04/2007.                    

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         10/22/2007.                    

*EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         05/23/2008.                    

# ADDRESSES:

Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of the Presidential disaster declaration for the State of Minnesota, dated 08/23/2007 is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster:

                    Primary Counties: Dodge.                          ( print page 52951)    

All other counties contiguous to the above named primary county have previously been declared.

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

Herbert L. Mitchell,

Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.

[FR Doc. 07-4453 Filed 9-14-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025-01-M
Page **1** of **1**

Date: September 13 , 2012 MEMORANDUM TO: Air and Radiation Docket EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2012

- 0542 SUBJECT: Meeting with Non

- Governmental Organizations On September 13 , 2012, seven representatives from various non

- governmental organizations (NGO) met with representatives of EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality and Office of General Counsel to discuss EPA’s Notice of Data Availability on renewable fuels produced from palm oil. A complete list of attendees is below. Office Director Oge welcomed the NGO representatives and provided an overview of EPA’s work on palm oil, each of the NGO representatives summarized the perspectives of their organization, and a general discussion followed. Topics discussed included greenhouse gas emissions from drained tropical peat soil, and deforestation related to palm oil production. **Meeting Attendees:** 1. Glenn Horowitz, Climate Advisers 2. Brian Siu, Natural Resources Defense Council 3. Dough Boucher, Union of Concerned Scientists 4. Jeremy

Martin, Union of Conc erned Scientists 5. Chris Malins, The International Council on Clean Transportation 6. Craig Kirkpatrick, World Wildlife Fund 7. Michal Rosenoer, Friends of the Earch **Representatives from EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation** Margo Oge Director, Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ) Chris Grundler Deputy Office Director, OTAQ Karl Simon Director of OTAQ’s Transportation and Climate Division (TCD) Ben Hengst Assistant Director, OTAQ/TCD Paul Argy

ropoulos Senior Advisor, OTAQ Robert Larson Senior Advisor, OTAQ/TCD Aaron Levy Program Anal ys t, OTAQ/TCD Angela Dickens AAAS Science & Technology Policy Fellow, OTAQ TCD **Representatives from EPA’s Office of General Counsel** Steve Wolfson Roland Dubois
Exhibit 32.2

         CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED
          PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Union Bankshares, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. [SECTION]1350, as adopted pursuant to [SECTION]906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that to the best of her knowledge: 1) the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and 2) the information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the
periods covered in the Report.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Union Bankshares, Inc. and will be retained by Union
Bankshares, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.


/s/ Marsha A. Mongeon
-----------------------------
Marsha A. Mongeon
Chief Financial Officer


May 12, 2006


<PAGE>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 161 (Tuesday, August 22, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 57129]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18055]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--R Consortium, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on June 6, 2023, pursuant to section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), R Consortium, Inc. (``R 
Consortium'') has filed written notifications simultaneously with the 
Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in 
its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of 
extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, Mango Solutions has changed its name to Ascent Data 
Science, Bristol, UNITED KINGDOM.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and R Consortium intends to file 
additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On September 15, 2015, R Consortium filed its original notification 
pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of 
the Act on October 2, 2015 (80 FR 59815).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on January 4, 
2023. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
section 6(b) of the Act on January 25, 2023 (88 FR 4850).

Suzanne Morris,
Deputy Director Civil Enforcement Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2023-18055 Filed 8-21-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
* The case is unanimously ordered submitted without oral argument pursuant to

Fed. R. App. P. 34(a) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### JAN 6 1998 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DWIGHT ARMSTRONG, Defendant - Appellant. No. 97-3123 (D.C. No. 96-20074-01-KHV) (District of Kansas)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before ANDERSON , MCKAY and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.

On January 27, 1997, defendant-appellant entered a plea of guilty to one count of distribution of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). His presentence report calculated a criminal history ca tegory of IV and total offense level of 29. Defendant at sentencing moved for a d ownward departure under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3, arguing that his assigned crimina l history category significantly overrepresented the seriousness of his criminal his tory or the likelihood he would- 2 -

commit future crimes. The district court denied th e motion and imposed a sentence of 124 months imprisonment, well within th e guideline range. Defendant now appeals the denial of his motion for a downward departure. “A discretionary refusal to depart downward is not reviewable by this court unless it appears from the record the sentencing court err oneously believed the Guidelines did not permit a downward departure.” U nited States v. Nelson , 54 F.3d 1540, 1544 (10th Cir. 1995). The sentencing c ourt observed, in denying defendant’s motion: Well, I think that the Government’s position is wel l taken as a matter of law and that a downward departure in these circu mstances is not justified. I think, if anything, I am concerned that the defen dant has been nonresponsive to correction in his prior encounters with the legal system and doesn’t seem to have taken very seriousl y any of the past consequences of his encounters with the law. So I am not going to depart downward on that basis because I don’t thinkthat the criminal history category of 4 overrepresents his dispositio n to commit further crimes. R. Vol. 2 at 8-9. The above record indicates the sentencing court was aware of its discretionary power to depart downward in fixing Mr . Armstrong’s criminal history category and declined to exercise its discr etion. Thus, we lack jurisdiction to consider this allegation of error. The districtcourt is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.- 3 - ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Carlos F. Lucero Circuit Judge
From: Jim Sogor [mailto:geezerjim99@gmail.com] 

Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2015 1:31 PM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB32

To the Money sucking Big Wigs in the DOL

Dear Whomever,

I would like to let you all know I have worked my butt off for 48 

years and saved and scrimped to fund my retirement thru 

savings, the stock market and bond investments. I am by no 

means "Rich" and have given myself the opportunity to enjoy 

life in retirement now reasonably comfortably. 

I do not like the idea of you guys providing regulations that STEAL MY 

HARD EARNED MONEY!

WHY DON'T YOU LEAVE THE GOOD GUYS ALONE, 

BETTER YET BECOME ONE OF THE GOOD GUYS.

Respectfully

James C Sogor

GEEZERJIM99@GMAIL.COM
AGRITECH 

`- YS ," EI,/1 ,, 

18 May 2015 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Application for Amendment to Exemption 11574, Agri Tech Systems, LLC 

FAA Docket 2015-0352 

Dear Sir or Madam, 

On May 13, 2015, the FAA issued Exemption 11574 to Agri Tech Systems, LLC ("Agri Tech"), 

allowing commercial operations of its PA-01 Vapor aircraft under Section 333 of the FAA 

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. Agri Tech now respectfully applies for an amendment 

to the Exemption to allow Agri Tech to operate the Pulse Aerospace Vapor 55 in addition to the 

PA-01 Vapor described in the exemption request, under the same conditions as approved in 

Exemption 11574. 

The name and address of the applicant is: 

Agri Tech Systems, LLC 

Attn: Bret Lucas 

12871 Geneva Street 

Indianola, IA 50125 

Telephone: 515-961-4026 

Email: bret@agritechsystems.com 

The Vapor 55 aircraft is essentially the same aircraft described in Exemption 11574 except on a 

slightly larger scale. The added size simply allows for greater payload capacity and longer flight 

times due to increased battery size. The flight control system and Ground Control Station are the 

same as those used on the PA-01 Vapor in Exemption 11574. 

12871 Geneva Street, Indianola, IA 50125 9 Phone 515.961.4026 o info@agritechsystems.com owWW,agritechsystems.com 
The Flight Manual is attached as Agri Tech's Confidential "Appendix A" which details the 

specifications and operation of the Vapor 55. Agri Tech would request that this document not be 

made available to the public due to the proprietary information contained therein. 

Agri Tech intends operations consistent with those outlined in Exemption 11574 and would only 

ask that Exemption 11574 be amended to allow operation of the Vapor 55 aircraft. At all times, 

the total weight of the aircraft will be under 55 pounds. 

Because the Vapor 55 is so similar to the PA-01 Vapor aircraft in Exemption 11574, and the 

conditions under which it will operate remain the same, notice need not be provided in the 

Federal Register nor public comment solicited. 

Please contact us if any additional information is needed. 

Sincerely yours, 

/ `.'°_. 

Bret J. Lucas 

CEO, Agri Tech Systems 

Enclosure
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

March 23, 2009 

d0316 

Order 

 

March 23, 2009 

136775(66) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 136775 

 COA: 275019 

Livingston CC: 06-015781-FH 

MARK ROBERT PETRI, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s December 30, 

2008 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.
#### § 236.800 Sheet, locking.

A description in tabular form of the locking operations in an interlocking machine.
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 21

                       SUBSIDIARIES OF COMSAT CORPORATION

                           (As of December 31, 1999)



     Bethesda Real Property, Inc.
     COMSAT Capital I, L.P.
     COMSAT Digital Teleport, Inc.
     COMSAT General Corporation
       COMSAT General Telematics, Inc.
       COMSAT Technology, Inc.
       Electromechanical Systems, Inc.
     COMSAT International, Inc.
       BelCom, Inc.
         ZAO BelComRus
         ZAO MKT
           ZAO Stavropol-Cellular
         ZAO Novocom
       COMSAT Argentina, S.A.
       COMSAT Asia Incorporated
         Guanzhou T.H. Communication Technology Services, Ltd.
         COMSAT China/Hong Kong, Ltd.
       COMSAT do Brasil Equipamentos de Telecommunicacoes, Ltda.
         COMSAT Brasil, Ltda.
       COMSAT de Colombia, S.A.
         Comunicaciones Satelitales de Columbia, S.A.
       COMSAT Dijital Hizmetleri Ticaret Anonim Sirketi
       COMSAT de Guatemala, S.A
       COMSAT Iletisim Hizmetleri Ticaret Anonim Sirketi
       COMSAT Investments, Inc. Mauritius
       COMSAT de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.
       COMSAT Peru, S.A.
       COMSAT Venezuela, COMSATVEN, C.A.
       CI Services, Inc.
     COMSAT Laboratories Inc.
     COMSAT Laboratories India, Inc.
       Indicom Personal Communications Private Ltd.
     COMSAT Mobile Investments, Inc.
     COMSAT New Services, Inc.
     COMSAT Overseas, Inc.
     COMSAT Personal Communications, Inc.
     CRSI Acquisition, Inc.
From: Gary Connor [mailto:gary.steven.connor@gmail.com] 

Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2010 7:50 PM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA 

Subject: DOL Proposes to Define ESOP Appraisers as Fiduciaries

Reference the Department of Labor's Employee Benefits Security Administration 

(EBSA) proposal to define ESOP appraisers as fiduciaries. The proposal is part of a 

broader redefinition of fiduciaries that would include investment advisors under 

specified circumstances as plan fiduciaries. It would also define ESOP appraisers as 

investment advisors for this purpose for retirement plans. The change would apply 

both to valuations and fairness opinions. 

My questions: 

- How many abuses have occurred that sparked this proposed “remedy”, and what were

the circumstances for the “most egregious” and “least egregious” cases?

- Did the DOL consider the remedy of holding the fiduciaries accountable (as they are

today) for issues associated with ESOPs, as opposed to adding another player into the

fiduciary definition?   If this option was considered and dismissed, what was the

rationale for dismissing this approach?

Thanks and VR, Gary Connor
Editorial Note on Part 391
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 391 appear at 66 FR 49874, Oct. 1, 2001.

§ 391.55 LCV Driver-Instructor qualification files. ( a ) Each motor carrier must maintain a qualification file for each LCV driver-instructor it employs or uses. The LCV driver-instructor qualification file may be combined with his/her personnel file.
( b ) The LCV driver-instructor qualification file must include the information in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section for a skills instructor or the information in paragraph (b)(1) of this section for a classroom instructor, as follows: ( 1 ) Evidence that the instructor has met the requirements of 49 CFR 380.301 or 380.303;
( 2 ) A copy of the individual's currently valid CDL with the appropriate endorsements.
[69 FR 16738, Mar. 30, 2004; 69 FR 28846, May 19, 2004; 83 FR 16227, Apr. 16, 2018]
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1001.html[7/22/2015 6:08:43 AM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvc-buia

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1001

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Anonymous Anonymous

General Comment

I dont want the government using or making decisions with my 401k. They can't handle the national budget or

 any type of finacial situations. I can do a better job myself. They need to stay out of peoples money. Let the

 president, congress and senate give their own personal money to the govermemt but not everyone elses.